Posted on 06/23/2015 10:29:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Solving the marriage equation is easy --it resolves itself when you simply use the proper term:holy matrimony.
All indications suggest the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to miss this connection in its decision due any day now.
Marriage has always essentially been a function of “the church” (figuratively speaking).
It is not a function of the state—and in fact the state is specifically precluded from any activity whatsoever here—by the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Seen from this vantage point, the correct and inalienable vantage point, it is only our government’s insertion into matters where it has no legitimate delegated authority that has created any problems with which America now wrestles.
It is important here to understand the word government itself in a way that may not be familiar to you.
Government is not this “thing” that exists. Government is like soylent green: government is people. When you see the word government, in this case at least, read, “People working in Washington.”
This clears away much of the foggy bottom. Government is not doing things, or usurping power, or acting beyond its delegated powers. People working in Washington are doing things, or usurping power, or acting beyond their delegated powers. Government must be stopped, controlled, brought back in line. Wrong. People working in Washington must be stopped, controlled, brought back in line. But I digress.
If you can find a chapel that will marry you to a rock, many living things at once, whatever your heart desires without harming others, government (people working in Washington) has no legitimate sanctioned power in the matter, and it is forbidden for it (them) from getting involved. If you think some sort of government stamp is what makes marriage legitimate, government has succeeded in brainwashing you.
The many plain-English definitions of the word marriage, q.v., are not at issue (the marriage of plasterboard to studs to make a drywall, for example). The people in Washington have no legitimate authority over the word, everyone knows that.
Matters of inheritance, medical care, joint property, custody of children, real estate, royalties, social security, pensions—these are contractual matters between consenting parties and can be handled very nicely by courts, which is where they properly belong. Courts can be properly run by governments of course, from Washington or otherwise, and make competent decisions.
Taxing people unequally based on their living arrangements or offspring, which is where we find ourselves today, is a grotesque violation of the First Amendment ban and always has been, which leads us to the most difficult point.
Extricating ourselves from the entire government-usurped married-life problem is huge. People working in Washington have insinuated their way into our lives in such intricate and intractable ways that untangling the mess could take decades. We didn’t get here overnight, and we won’t get out overnight either. Luckily, we needn’t eat this entire elephant at once.
Regarding the more easily addressed who-can-commit-their-lives-in-whatever-way-they-choose issue, just find a chapel that can conduct a wedding ceremony as you like it, and wash the government right out of your hair. It has no business being there. Problem solved. In good theory of governance at least.
The Supreme Court’s impending decision (whether the several states are required to recognize gay marriage licenses of other states, or issue their own), is poised to totally overlook the fact that the First Amendment precludes it from being in the field at all. Marriage is a religious issue, not a secular one. People are bound to each other before their God. What about the godless? Then it’s just a contract, which is fine in a free state as long as no one is harmed, and government’s proper role is merely tangential. Contracts are enforceable.
We are thus reminded that this “high court” has repeatedly turned the Constitution upside down, just not hard enough yet to send the rabble into the streets with torches and pitchforks. A whole lot of pitchforks.
Government won’t take the holy-matrimony truth lying down of course, they’ll simply ignore it, like all other inconvenient truths. But it’s getting close to time to stand up to them. Holy matrimony and the ban on interfering with religion demand it.
Conservatives and liberals alike who demand that government coerce people to see religion their way miss the point altogether -- that is not a role assigned to government. Fight for that and we get what no one wants, which is at the heart of many of the nation’s ills, usurpation of power.
FYI, “Marriage” comes from the word, “Marry,” which meant to take an oath upon the Blessed Virgin Mary. “Marry,” is simply an archaic spelling of “Mary.”
“Married, filing jointly”.
My left wing niece that married a further left man hired her brother to go on line and be ordained. They obtained an Alaskan marriage license and then the newly brother went with them out into the boondocks somewhere and performed the ceremony
The brother became the “Officiant” and presumably signed off.
Alaska presumably allows this for non residents in case there is interest
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
That makes us even. For some reason, I thought my first post on the subject was pertinent to your remarks. But, if you see no connection, then obviously my taking the time to riff of your thoughts was wasted.
That’s the way it is in Mexico now. People need to get married twice...once by the church and once by the state.
This would drive the gays crazy, because what they really want is total acceptance on everyone. They do not want a state marriage license that many churches do not consider valid.
Yes they can, under the common law-by meeting a few simple criteria-and that is perfectly okay with me-if I were going to marry again, I’d do it with a priest, just like before, but this time, no government license/involvement.
The only reason we got the license was because the military requires it for a spouse to be eligible for any benefits like Tricare, commissary, etc-MrT5 was also Catholic, and we shared the same beliefs regarding marriage-we originally intended to just get our attorney to do a contract for the civil part of it.
I see what you are saying. And if the court imposes 50 state homosexual marriage, I expect we could see lawsuits against churches which don’t perform such marriages.
Which could then lead, among other things, to churches saying they don’t do legal marriages anymore.
Crazy that we have to go through all of this to accomodate a small fraction of the population. And that we have to do this when there are many available legal actions anyone can take to deal with inheritance, property, healthcare, children,etc. We as a society didn’t need to be compelled to change the definition of marriage just to accommodate the legal issues which homosexuals said they were wanting to deal with.
Why didn’t you just skip making it legal?
In 1800, in 1900, and in 2000, and even in Mayberry, USA in 1950, and in 2015, you don’t have to seek to make your marriage legal if you don’t want to.
Thomas Jefferson didn’t have to get a marriage license, but he wanted to.
Exactly! If the government didn’t intrude into marriage with things like tax breaks and other legal matters, there wouldn’t be near as much hubub!
A ridiculous and ignorant post.
Holy Matrimony!
Amen!
How quaint and archaic. Time to move into the 21st century. < /sarc >
Promoting “homosexual” “Marriage” is irrational and pure Marxism which is incompatible with our “Justice” System based on “Right Reason according to Natural Law”.
This Marxist ideology is dehumanizing-—and unjust-—to pretend males and females are interchangeable and the same. It is a Lie-—as all Marxist ideology is.
Just Law is based on Truth-—which is only available with Natural Law Theory (or God’s Laws—revelation). The US jurisprudence system is based on “...the Laws of Nature and nature’s God”——which is incompatible with selling babies which deny biological connection and using women’s bodies as breeding machines-—like Marxism always does.
All Just Law has to promote Virtue-—and that includes Natural Duties which includes the basic First Principles of raising your OWN genetic offspring. Any system which denies biological connections is Marxism which is an ideology which wants to destroy ALL biological connections and the idea of God-—so the State is god and parents have no say into the forming of minds of their children.
Total dehumanization is Marxism-—removeal of ALL unique identity in people-—even the Truth/Fact of male/female identity. It is to destroy and corrupt Reason and Logic in children so they can collapse civil society with dumb, useful idiots-—”happy slaves” who are so irrational they believe “snow is black” (males are females) (Fichte 1810).
These useful idiots are controlled by pop culture and rhetoric of the Leftists-—it is what Prussian schools are designed to pump out-—useful idiots for the elites who control all curricula, media, ideas given to the masses. (One way to “think” LOL)
Sick, vile images (media) are forced onto our kids with the Jenner cover, etc.——to corrupt and condition children and the masses and embed the correct “emotions” for the NWO of “happy slavery”.
Because the military requires that you have a license to get benefits for a spouse-my 1st husband was also in the military, and those benefits are nice if you are stationed in a place like SanFran, Hawaii or Alaska where everything is really expensive-if you are, that housing allowance, commissary and BX, etc add up to good savings.
The legal contract we wanted was just your garden variety pre-nuptial contract-we had one done anyway, since we each had children and property from a previous marriage.
“think IRS filing”
It is the government that makes all this “necessary”. Gift and death taxes, and exemption therefrom.
The federal government does not require you to have a legal marriage.
You didn’t need to seek legal recognition unless you wanted to, it sounds like you wanted to, don’t you think that almost everyone wants their marriage to be legal?
Legal marriage existed long before the IRS, in fact for thousands of years, it is a necessity.
Not intrude into Muslim and Mormon, and gay marriage?
You are finally getting your wish.
Not according to what I can find. Most of the online sources reference mari- as referring to a young man or a young woman.
I did find where marry was used as an interjection back in the middle ages, and then it was a corruption of Virgin Mary. But that kind of oath is the kind when you say "Oh Lord!" or "Oh marry!", i.e., expressing strong emotions, not the kind of oath promising something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.